The truth about a complex built for veterans and the middle class and how it has evolved through the years to become one of the more interesting and controversial of New York stories.

Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved. NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Million Dollar Dan

East Side City Councilman Daniel Garodnick has raised more than $1 million for a run at citywide office, posing a potential challenge to replace embattled City Comptroller John Liu, who is eyeing a run for mayor.

Garodnick raised more than $280,000 over the past six months, according to campaign filings released Wednesday, bringing his campaign war chest to more than $1 million so far.

“That’s a considerable amount of bucks,” said Baruch College politics professor Doug Muzzio.“If Liu does run for mayor and opens up the comptroller seat or needs to resign… Garodnick is in a really good spot," he said.

While the councilman has not yet officially declared his candidacy for any position, sources close to him said he’s eyeing a run for comptroller if Liu leaves the post, setting up a potential challenge with fellow Councilman Domenic Recchia Jr., who currently heads the Council's powerful Finance Committee.

Recchia brought in over $270,000 over the past six months, bringing his total raised to $483,000 for the 2013 race.

If Liu chooses to remain comptroller, some believe Garodnick would also be a strong candidate for Manhattan Borough President, a position that is also being eyed by Community Board 1 chairwoman Julie Menin, as well as Councilwoman Jessica Lappin. Current Borough President Scott Stringer is running for mayor.

Garodnick, who chairs the Council’s Consumer Affairs committee and held a large campaign kick-off event earlier this month, said he was excited by the numbers, which place him among the city’s fundraising elite.

“People have been extremely supportive, and I’m encouraged by that,” Garodnick said of the filings, which were made public Wednesday.

“I think that my approach of trying to solve people’s problems by rolling up your sleeves and getting things done is appealing. I’ve tried to bring that, along with progressive values, to the table,” he added.

In addition to his focus on consumer protection issues, Garodnick said he will continue to push for long-term affordable housing and stability for tenants at Stuyvesent Town and Peter Cooper Village, where he was raised and currenty lives with his wife and young son.

In addition to his cash flow, Garodnick's records show he spent about $34,000 over the past six months, mainly on campaign consultants, voter databases, and a major event at the Mexican restaurant Mojave in Astoria, Queens.

While other candidates like Stringer have courted money from big-names celebs, including actress Scarlett Johansson and Lady Gaga’s dad, Joe Germanotta, Garodnick said he’s relying on longtime supporters, including his family.

“My mom is there,” he joked. “That’s the biggest name I think you’re going to find.” (Records show she donated $200 last week.)

And while he intends to continue fundraising, Garodnick said his energy will remain focused on his current Council gig.

“There’s still two years to go, and I have a list of legislative goals that is extremely long,” he said. "There is a lot to do.”

-------------------------

STR here: That joke about his mom may be cute, but a look at the online records for contributions shows significant donations from Garodnick's former law partners (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton& Garrison) and...real estate and investment banking concerns, which tend to donate between 1K and 5K to Dan's campaign.

Just going alphabetically we have, for instance,Daniel Brodsky donating 3K to Dan. According to the Times: "Mr. Brodsky is the managing director of the Brodsky Organization, a company he started with his father, Nathan Brodsky, in 1971. It currently owns and manages 6,200 apartments in 68 Manhattan buildings and has also developed a number of condominium and co-op buildings."

The Campagnas (David & Julie, a "homemaker") donated $3,200 to Dan. Julie's the homemaker, we know from the Finance Board records, but who is David? Well, do a Google search and David turns out to be the owner of Campagna Realty.

And the real estate interests in Dan's campaign continue. Other politicos in NYC get similar donations. While affordable middle-class housing diminishes.

Just go to the provided link and where you see big money, chances are it's going to be Dan's former law firm or real estate/investment companies. Now I can understand Dan's law buddies backing him, but why would real estate people want to donate to any politician? What's in it for them? What influence do they want? How do they want to change the city? Do they want to buy and manage property for the middle class?

My dismay is seeing Vornado Realty (misspelled Varnado Realty) there, with substantial contributions to Dan's campaign. Vornado is the company that owns that piece of real estate on 33 St and 7 Ave (now a hotel) where the tower to outdo the Empire State Building is going to be built. The City Council, to include Dan, voted to do away with the zoning in that area to permit Vornado to build there. A very controversial decision, and one which will change the iconic NY skyline in that area forever. So what happens now? Dan gets a shitload of money from Vornado. It's shameful and disgusting.

There's other crap happening in the city in regards to the City Council (Dan included). Like the overturning of Landmark Preservation decisions.

That's why we are fucked. (Sorry to use the strong language, if you are offended.) We are just the suckers, the little pawns in this game of high money and real estate, conversion "affordability" plan included.

We're screwed (if we define "we" as the middle class) because the people that are the rulers here in the Manhattan are not just the politicians but, more so, the big-monied real estate companies. For the latter, if a property isn't developed to its maximum potential (of bringing in the largest amount of money), then the property is underdeveloped. ST/PCV is clearly such a property. Despite all its problems. And one of the ways to bring this property up to maximum potential is to get rid of the middle class here and replace it with more affluent tenants. This has been happening already for a number of years in ST/PCV and the tide ain't turning and I don't see any possibility of it turning, particularly with the focus now being on tenant co-ownership of this property. (Remember, while the TA says that tenants will own their apartments if they agree to a condo conversion, Brookfield will still probably have the majority say in what happens here.) One of the outcomes of a condo conversion is the break-up of the Tenants Association, something admitted to by the TA itself. So, a powerful voice for tenant rights and rent stabilization will be gone. Another victory for real estate concerns.

There's just a lot stacked against the middle class in Manhattan, to include the hefty contributions a Dan Garodnick gets from real estate and investment firms.

Next mayoral election we ought to put Jimmy McMillan in office just to make a point. I'm still angered by the results of the 2009 election. Bill Thompson probably would have been just as susceptible to doing the bidding of real estate interests, considering he supported the Atlantic Yards project, but he would have been better than Bloomberg. We need a regular person to run this town.

A lot of the Brookfield deal is unclear & untested. Brookfield has incentive to find the 'right balance' between buyers & renters. (Meredith Kane virtually said they would be testing price points.) In this scenario Brookfield would not want a maximum number of tenants buying. They'd want a substantial number of renters. Why? Because when the rentals vacate (as one day they must), they'll sell these at market rate & make a killing. Brookfield only has incentive to be involved so long as it has a lot of rental apts it can eventually sell. Once these are gone, it's bye-bye. Also, once the tenants own the majority of the apts, what sense does it make to have Brookfield as the 'owner'. We should be the owners, should we not? And we should develop methods of governance. That should be our responsibility, should it not?

>>No conversion means a steady loss of RS protected apts leading to an almost complete MR complex by the J-51 expiration date in 2020.<<

If nothing is done for rent stabilization and tenant protections. We assume the worst in this scenario, and freely offer ST/PCV up to the chopping block, eradicating a powerful voice for rent stabilization in the process.

Anyone who thinks that it will be good for there to be no conversion is absolutely wrong. Even with rent stabilization in place at the end of 20 years, people on fixed income will be forced to move. The rents will be too high. The best thing that can happen is a conversion at a price low enough for a tremendous number of folks to buy. Some people may choose to sell at some point, but for those who love in here in Manhattan, they will be able to stay & pass the apt on to their kids & that will keep this place middle-class for a very long time.

Thanks for posting this info. It's important to know who's contributing to who's campaigns. Unfortunately, you then jump to some nasty conclusions about Dan Darodnick in the comments section.

It is very expensive to run a political campaign in NYC. Campaigns can't be run on small contributions alone, although Dan has attracted an awful lot of small contributors. Most of his contributors give somewhere in the $25 - $250 range, so the $500 and $1,000 contributions really stick out.

Now to the conclusion you jumped to. Contributions like the $4,950.00 from Real Estate guy Marvin Chudnoff (who's also given to the Mitt Romney campaign and other GOPers running for the Congress) are few but they jump off the page. That's a lot of money. But that $4,950.00 doesn't guarantee Chudnoff anything and he knows it. All it does is ensure that his side of an issue gets a hearing.

That's our crappy system, that's how the game is played. If you don't like it, demand a change in the rules of the game. IMO, the obvious way to get private money out is to 100% publicly fund elections. Since the Supreme Court's unfortunate decision in 2010's 'Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission,' it will take a constitutional amendment to make something like that happen, and that won't be easy. At the end of last year, Sen Tom Udall of New Mexico introduced a constitutional amendment allowing Congress and state legislatures to establish public campaign finance.

>>Anyone who thinks that it will be good for there to be no conversion is absolutely wrong. Even with rent stabilization in place at the end of 20 years, people on fixed income will be forced to move. The rents will be too high.<<

And twenty years from now where will the tenants be who decided not to go condo? The fight should be to STRENGTHEN rent stabilization and tenant protections, so that the scenario you paint does not happen. With condo conversion, we voluntarily surrender. Sure some people will make out well, but it will only be the tenants who are rich now. For the rest, if they accept a condo conversion, their financial burdens will most probably be greater than they are now, and they will still have to answer to the master, Brookfield, who will hold a majority share in the property.

STR - This is why the plan that goes through is so critical & at least for tenant understanding must be examined carefully. I'm not an advocate for Guterman-Westwood, but their plan addresses your concerns. They've stated that the rental apts would be sold to a non-profit agency & by contract would be maintained as rent stabilized apts in perpetuity. As yet, we have no details from Brookfield about this.

STR -There is another aspect of the Guterman-Westwood plan that needs to be considered. I'm told that this group analyzed to determine what the price per sq foot had to be in order for monthly payments to be equal to what tenants are paying in rent now. Their monthly payment analysis (I'm told) includes loan payments (personal loan & co-op loan, principal & interest) and maintenance fees. Again, I'm not advocating for G-W. I'm saying they have a response to your concern that should be looked at. As yet, we have no response from Brookfield on this score.

STR- 20 years from now the tenants who decided not to buy will be in the same situation they are now (provided RS exists). I agree with the prior poster's pro conversion remarks wholeheartedly. I appreciate your feelings regarding the conversion but I certainly do not agree with them. The notion that there will be a weaker fight to maintain RS after the conversion I think is simply wrong. Sty town is not the only RS complex in the city. Furthermore, as the previous poster mentioned and I have many times in the past, RS assures that all of us middle class New Yorkers will eventually have to leave our apartments. It's built into the system with all the yearly increases constantly compounding and let's not even begin to talk about MCI'S.

As far as only rich tenants only making out well, well that's not the idea behind the conversion. Certainly, if that is indeed the case then I won't be able to buy my place. If by rich you mean someone able to scrape up 10% of a very good (granted this is an assumption on my part at this point) insider price then yes you are correct.

As far as answering to "the master Brookfield", well what would you prefer? A company of the TA'S choosing (an entity of people who were voted in by the tenants) or some other Tischman Spyer like scum bags who will no doubt come in and buy the property?

>>Unfortunately, you then jump to some nasty conclusions about Dan Garodnick in the comments section.<<

The conclusions are based on fact. Dan voted to allow Vornado to built a skyscraper that competes with the Empire State Building, with the zoning being shoved aside for that vote. Then Dan gets the biggest contribution yet in his campaign from Vornado. Did I already mention this stinks?

Regarding changing the finance laws, every NYC politician can step up to the plate and make a pledge not to accept campaign donations from real estate/investment entities that, by their very nature, have an interest in seeing the middle class out of Manhattan (as tenants; they need them as workers).

>>The notion that there will be a weaker fight to maintain RS after the conversion I think is simply wrong. Sty town is not the only RS complex in the city.<<

I believe Stuy Town is the biggest RS complex in the city. And that the TA is the biggest such tenant organization in the city, even country. (?) Once conversion happens, the TA will be weakened considerably. The TA has stated itself that it will be broken apart. How will all this strengthen the battle for RS and tenant rights?

Garodnick has made disparaging remarks about the Guterman-Westwood plan, but he's made these remarks at a general level - like an attempt to smear, I think. This is more a politician's reaction than a businessman's and the conversion plan is a matter of business. I have no problem with people objecting to any plan, but I want to know the detailed reasons. Therefore, I expect Garodnick to be publicly challenged to explain his remarks. And if he does not or cannot, then he should apologize and take these statements back.

"If nothing is done for rent stabilization and tenant protections. We assume the worst in this scenario, and freely offer ST/PCV up to the chopping block, eradicating a powerful voice for rent stabilization in the process."

It would take repeal of vacancy decontrol to save STPCV from a majority MR future. Even the most sanguine RS activist would say there's little likelihood of this happening. Hence, organizations like tenants and neighbors support conversion because it will preserve RS affordability at STPCV beyond the j-51 expiration date. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

I wish you'd look before you leap. The City Council voted 47-1 to allow Vornado to proceed with 15 Penn Plaza. But that doesn't stop you from making nasty allegations that you can't really back up with "facts."

>>I wish you'd look before you leap. The City Council voted 47-1 to allow Vornado to proceed with 15 Penn Plaza. But that doesn't stop you from making nasty allegations that you can't really back up with "facts."<<

Only 1 council person out of 48 voted against Vornado's skyscraper! Yet you feel free to allege in a public forum that some kind of payoff deal between Dan G and Vornado went on?

47 out of 48 city council members voted the way they did because they thought the Empire State Building's owners' lobbying campaign/argument was silly (so did I). In addition, Vornado offered to put up $100 million to improve Penn Station and council members were happy to promote development so close to major NYC transportation hub Penn Station.

I'm sorry, but you took on a lot of responsibility when you decided to provide this public forum. Muckraking is one thing. Making wild accusations is another. It's just reckless and irresponsible.

>>Only 1 council person out of 48 voted against Vornado's skyscraper! Yet you feel free to allege in a public forum that some kind of payoff deal between Dan G and Vornado went on?<<

You are completely missing several points as you protect Garodnick. I already have underlined numerous times what I feel is the general lack of ethics in the city council. The whole bunch of them accept donations from real estate businesses, so it's no surprise that they would overturn zoning to favor a Vornado, just as they recently overturned landmark designation for a building on the Bowery. Garodnick used to be more careful about where his campaign donations came from. That's why seeing him open up his pockets wide for real estate companies that have a stake in maximizing profits in Manhattan and lessening affordable middle class housing is a deep concern. If you like what Manhattan is turning into, a playground for the rich and their NYU/Columbia sons and daughters, a city of high rises with a drug store and bank at ground level, that's fine, too. For you. But not for me.

>>47 out of 48 city council members voted the way they did because they thought the Empire State Building's owners' lobbying campaign/argument was silly (so did I). In addition, Vornado offered to put up $100 million to improve Penn Station and council members were happy to promote development so close to major NYC transportation hub Penn Station.<<

Yeah, like that 100 million will lessen congestion when a mammoth high rise office/residential building goes up near Macy's. It's already a nightmare of crowds there and will be more so when "Vornado Tower" goes up. This will be the City Council's folly, just as that 2nd Ave Subway is a folly, too, and costing current mom-and-pop stores their livelihood and infuriating residents of the area.

The City Council is a bunch of bought and paid for puppets. They are in the pockets of the RE industry and do not in any way represent the people they are supposed to be serving. We need to get rid of the whole sorry bunch. I will not vote for any incumbent, including Garodnick and particularly that awful toad, Christine Quinn.

At conversion, Affordability is "captured" by the unit owner. Truly affordable housing programs should reach for affordability retention. The TA whispers of a few units which will transfer with explicit resale restrictions, thus retaining affordability at the unit. But the trivial amount of units can in no way compensate for the loss of 10,000+ formerly affordable housing units.

I know. If the TA does not acquire STPCV we are left to the devil we do not know. AND the TA needs to put together a plan that tells a compelling story to CWCapital. I think we all get that. But what frustrates me is this condescending attitude that the TA believes it can draft the framework of conversion without the approval of even 5% of the tenancy (and in closed-door, behind the scenes, under the table fashion).

I'll put up my 20+ years of real estate finance experience against anyone on the board.

Can the person who commented this please go to my blog. www.pcvstconversionforum.blogspot.com/. I make some real estate process observations there. Would appreciate any corrections.

BTW, I don't believe the TA is coming up with any framework at all. I believe that Brookfield will fashion a plan that's to its liking. What the TA's role really is with respect to Brookfield...God only knows.

Anon 4:11, I don't disagree with anything you're saying except one. This is something I have brought up many times and no one, including STR, has ever addressed. WHen you say "the loss of 10000+ formally affordable housing units" what exactly do you mean. Affordable to someone currently making $75000 per year? I'm not talking about the "market rate" apartments. The current RS apartments are not so "affordable" currently and as each year comes they keep increasing. Please explain to me how RS=affordability into the future.

Also, with your real estate experience I wish you would have ran for a seat on the TA board! I have no reason to doubt what you are saying and we all could have used that kind of expertise.

This is a point I've been trying to make before. Over the next 20 years, under RS certainly for those who are over 50 now the rents won't be affordable as they go on fixed income. That's why affordable conversion is the best answer for these folks. For anyone younger, yes - your wages may keep pace so that you'll feel the rent increases are affordable. But look at the alternative if you're able to buy your apt...you have the benefit of a tremendous investment. By the time you might be interested in selling (let's say in 20 yrs), your apt will be worth at least 3-4x what you paid for it. The key is the conversion plan...what conversion plan CW goes with. That's why it's so important everybody focuses on this.

How will buying the apartment be more affordable for those over 50 who will be going onto a fixed income within the next few years? Surely the increases in maintenance charges, taxes, etc., will be as much as, if not more than, increases in rent?

I think there is a need for more affordable RENTAL housing in New York. I am disappointed that the TA seems to have abandoned the fight for the preservation of rent stabilization. I wish I had never donated money to the TA or Tenants and Neighbors. Never will donate another red cent to either, that's for sure.

"How will buying the apartment be more affordable for those over 50" --Your rent increases will be dictated by the rent guidelines board which listens to the pleas of landlords about how much they must pay in taxes and maintenance costs. Also the rent guidelines board takes into the account that landlords are entitled to make reasonable profits.Under the Guterman-Westwood plan, we would be the owners. So we would decide what 'extra' maintenance projects get done. So the point is that as owners we would probably be not be paying more. The 'reason profit' element wouldn't be a factor & we would have some measure of control over maintenance costs. So with less or equal monthly costs, you'd get the value of ownership when & if you chose to sell and turn over to your children. Not sure about scenarios under Brookfield. I believe (not sure) that Brookfield would be the owner under its plan which might mean we'd have less control over maintenance projects.

"How will buying the apartment be more affordable for those over 50 who will be going onto a fixed income within the next few years? Surely the increases in maintenance charges, taxes, etc., will be as much as, if not more than, increases in rent?"

It won't. The potential for investment gains is different than an assurance of investment gains.

RS increases and even evil MCIs are limited by law. Maintenance increases and assessments have absolutely no limit. And when operating costs grow rapidly, resale values fall concomitantly.

Whomever buys this place next is going to be saddled with the costs of catching up on the maintenance that has been postponed during the TS and post-TS debacle years. That owner can be the next greedy RE enterprise (greed is good, remember...) or it can be the tenants.

I think I'd rather leave the catch-up expenses to someone else and, if I'm still here and interested in owning a piece of this place in a decade, I'd be happy to revisit the calculation at that point. Right now this transaction is going to be a big cost shift. It can be to us or to someone else.

You're going to have to give me one heck of a rationale to directly bear those costs myself.

Your argument for not buying now is 100% predicated on your assumed existence of exorbitant maintenance costs. You raise a good point - as a potential. That is, we will all be interested. Those costs remain to be seen. Would be very interested to know if there are specific costs you know of that you can identify.

Affordability as defined by HUD/FHA is monthly housing costs not exceeding 30% of gross income. That's the definition. To speak that rent stabilization should assist the low-income (30% of AMI or 50% of AMI) is another dialogue. Also, remember, HUD/FHA programs allow subsidy to moderate incomes (80% AMI to 120% AMI).

I said 10,00+ apartments were formerly affordable. Time has not eroded that affordability. Annual rent increases over the years actually lag annual gains in NY MSA median income growth (although outpace inflation by about 0.25%). The LOSS of the affordability of the apartments were due to allowances in RS law for landlords to 'improve' the apartments over time or take vacancy credits,etc. If you've lived here for a good number of years and your income has increased at the NY average, your % of gross income being paid would not have increased. The problem is that when someone moves out, there is no vehicle in place to ensure that the apartment remains affordable for the next tenant (not to mention there is no restriction on the specific income of the next tenant). Also, NY municipal housing subsidies do not necessarily lock in long-term affordability. They provide developer/owner $ assistance for allocating a small % of stock for a relativley short duration (less than 20 years).

There are some very compelling programs utilized across the country that attempt to 'deed restrict' housing in order to perpetuate affordability at a specific housing development. The TA whispers that they will initiate such a program for 'those tenants who wish to enroll CAPPED AT A CERTAIN YET UNDETERMINED NUMBER'. So only a few units will retain affordability.The value creation by conversion is transferred to the unit purchaser and is not retained in the unit. So when the unit purchaser sells, the sale is at market rate and the affordability of the unit is lost forever.

To the new blooger. I'll visit your site and GOOD LUCK with your attempts to source TA information.

THINKING of Renting in PCVST?

Read Yelp reviews to find out what it's like living here. Please note: All apartments are currently "rent-stabilized" but that doesn't prevent apartments from going up to 4K to 6K a month and even higher. How does this happen? Ask our politicians! Fact: Now less than half of the complex's apartments have the old rents and it's getting worse year by year--or better if you are the Real Estate Board of New York!

The Other Yelp Reviews

Yelp can be tricky and bounce reviews for a variety of reasons, like being a member and posting just one review. Very often, however, these reviews hold important truths about what's being reviewed. READ THESE TOO.

BICYCLES, MOPEDS, SCOOTERS, ETC.

Of course, "private property" but "public access" - whatever that means! And if a part of it is public access, do the rules of the city apply to our roads and sidewalks? Or does anything give because this complex is "private property"? Who comes here in case of a fire in one of our buildings? The Stuy Town Fire Brigade?

Hint: Look both ways if you are in the complex. Look on the ground, too!

61.03 Control of dogs and other animals to prevent nuisance. (a) A person who owns, possesses or controls a dog, cat or other animal shall not permit the animal to commit a nuisance on a sidewalk of any public place, on a floor, wall, stairway, sidewalk, lawn, garden or roof of any public or private premises used in common by the public, or on a fence, wall [or], stairway or entranceway of a building abutting on a public place

Banned & Oversize Dog Breeds in Stuy Town

Looks like there is some difficulty in enforcing the ban on certain dog breeds allowed inside Stuy Town/Peter Cooper Village. Somehow pitbulls and pitbull mixes have been registered in STPCV and are allowed to be freely walked about the grounds! Registered dogs in the complex are max 50 pounds. Total, if there is more than one! More than two, it's illegal. It's going to get worse, and, face it, Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village will never be like it once was.

Follow by Email

Read it and Weep

Current Value of ST/PCV

Was 5.4 Billion Dollars when Tishman Speyer bought the place.Became 1.7 Billion Dollars when Tishman Speyer left, with their tail between their legs. Of course, tenants now have to make up the loss.

Ex-landlord

Rob Speyer

1947 Stuy Town Plaque Honoring Met Life Chairman F.H. Ecker (Removed in 2002 and never seen again)

"... who with the vision of experience and the energy of youth conceived and brought into being this project, and others like it, that families of moderate means might live in health, comfort and dignity in park-like communities and that a pattern might be set of private enterprise productively devoted to public service."

I am writing on behalf of everyone at Tishman Speyer to express how honored we are to become part of your outstanding community. We are a business with deep roots in New York, a true love of our city and a great respect for the neighborhoods that make it special. We are committed to maintaining the unique character and environment that have made Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town such a wonderful place to live for so long. We look forward to providing you an extraordinary level of service and attentiveness that will be the source of pride and satisfaction for the entire community.

Neighborhood Recommendations

New to Stuy Town/Peter Cooper Village? Here are some basic recommendations.

Best supermarket: Associated on 14th St. between 1st Ave. and Ave A. The cheapest prices, fantastic weekly sales, very affordable lunches; solid, responsive management. Some of the young female cashiers have attitude to spare, though. May be too far for Peter Cooper residents.

Best gym: Don't waste your money on the Oval Fitness Gym. Instead go to the earthy but real Asser Levy Recreational Center, right above 23rd St on Asser Levy Place (near the FDR Drive). $75 for a year's membership; seniors are almost free. Contains seasonal indoor and outdoor swimming pools, ping-pong table, two pool tables. Called by some rich people who wouldn't get caught going there "the prison gym," and you know why.

A Stuy Town favorite is Lenz's on 20 St. between the 20 St. Loop. The way New York used to be. Be careful of unwanted "pepper" in your food, however. Lenz's has a B grade rating and was temporarily closed down due to an order from the Health Department. Bruno's on First Avenue is more upscale, with a greater selection of food items (higher-priced, too), but was closed down temporarily by the Health Department in June.

Gracefully has two locations, but we prefer for it's size the one on 1st Ave. Prices are high and reflect the new tenants that are currently renting Stuy Town and Peter Cooper apartments. We like Gracefully's lunch specials, which are affordable.

Disappointments:

Starbucks. Both the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village ones, but at least you can get a seat once in a while at the Peter Cooper Starbucks. The personnel seem nice, but the last time I was at the 23rd St one, I had to leave because the music was loud and screechy, so that I thought dying cats were screaming.

Macular Degeneration Support Group

If you are currently diagnosed with Macular Degeneration, the New York Eye & Ear Infirmary is offering a support group for you. Conveniently located next to the Peter Cooper Village Stuyvesant Town apartment complex, our group offers the opportunity to share stories with other members, listen to expert guest speakers, and learn coping strategies to reduce stress. Our group runs on the first Wednesday of every month and we would enjoy seeing you there.
Please contact Baptiste Nicolas, Social Work Assistant at 212-979-4105 for further information and to see if this group is right for you!